The NYTreports on the looming debate over reauthorizing portions of the Patriot Act.

Both the House and the Senate are set to hold their first committee hearings this week on whether to reauthorize three sections of the Patriot Act that expire at the end of this year. The provisions expanded the power of the F.B.I. to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls in the course of a counterterrorism investigation.

Laying down a marker ahead of those hearings, a group of senators who support greater privacy protections filed a bill on Thursday that would impose new safeguards on the Patriot Act while tightening restrictions on other surveillance policies. The measure is co-sponsored by nine Democrats and an independent.

Days before, the Obama administration called on Congress to reauthorize the three expiring Patriot Act provisions in a letter from Ronald Weich, assistant attorney general for legislative affairs. At the same time, he expressed a cautious open mind about imposing new surveillance restrictions as part of the legislative package.

"We are aware that members of Congress may propose modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans," Mr. Weich wrote, adding that "the administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities."

Prediction: Congress will enact superficial reforms that do not impose any significant limitations on existing authorities.

The way our political system works is that Obama will use the Patriot Act to eavesdrop on the National Rifle Association in the interests of national security. Republicans will be outraged by the privacy implications of the law they enacted and demand that Congress enact privacy safeguards, e.g. reporting to Congress whenever the law is used for surveillance of a US citizen. Obama will then sign these new safeguards into law, along with a signing statement saying he's free to ignore them. He will then never actually report anything to Congress and refuse to say whether he's actually eavesdropping on US citizens, while insisting he's applying the law consistent with his powers as commander in chief and consistent with the unitary executive. Republicans will be outraged at executive stonewalling.

Then once the Republicans take back the White House the above scenario will be repeated, but with the parties switching sides.

I think Cornellian has pretty much nailed it. I would add: in each case, the appropriate blogo-hemisphere will express apocalyptic levels of outrage at the most tyrannical administration in American history.

"I am so sick of these corporations littering without a permit. It's not like those permits are hard to get."

The FISA Courts were basically a rubberstamp even from inception throughout the Clinton years. So why not do the extra paperwork (especially with the retroactive warrants) to get that air of legitimacy?

Additionally it seems to me that there will be small issues taken care of (even the telecom immunity issue is small potatoes unless you are a telecom), since the issues were more of degree than anything.

There were going to be post 9/11 reforms, but the more relevant critics (so save your Michael Moore rants) wanted to make sure they were done right....rather than reasoning that didn't go further than: We need reforms post 9/11, these count as reforms, thus they must be good.

The FISA Courts were basically a rubberstamp even from inception throughout the Clinton years. So why not do the extra paperwork (especially with the retroactive warrants) to get that air of legitimacy?

I can see why you'd infer that, but I don't think we know enough to be sure. It may be the case that only lock solid requests were brought before FISA, which is why it appeared to be a rubberstamp.

After 9/11, I'd be shocked if the threshhold at which surveillance was pursued wasn't greatly lowered. I wouldn't even be surprised if there was a desire for fishing expeditions (and I don't think in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, this would have been unpopular). But I wouldn't expect the FISA court to have lowered their standards.

I don't have any real knowledge, but this strikes me as the most likely scenario. I don't think it was arrogant so much as expedient - it's one thing to do what you need "to get the job done" while asserting that you don't need court approval , it would be something very different to do it in active defiance of a court. It's better to ask forgiveness than ask permission.

Those are fair points...but they were lowering the standards as well (retroactive warrants, etc.)

Those retroactive warrants would have kept the percentages high, or they could have essentially "punted" on the ones that didn't yield anything material thus making the numbers look less rubberstamp like...

I don't actually think "fishing expeditions would have been popular" is a proper argument.

Under that logic you could have literally called the program "The Star Chamber" and it would have still passed.

The first such provision allows investigators to get "roving wiretap" court orders authorizing them to follow a target who switches phone numbers or phone companies, rather than having to apply for a new warrant each time.

Let's see if who wants to change this one. It is nothing more than an update to existing wiretapping law to keep up with technology.

As such, it provides a good test. Anyone, left or right, who objects to this is simply not serious about security.

The other two provisions require judicial warrants, and the latter one was never used. Again, let's see who complains.

As for the prediction that the right will hyperventilate over Patriot Act now that Obama is in power - nonsense.

I think Cornellian has pretty much nailed it. I would add: in each case, the appropriate blogo-hemisphere will express apocalyptic levels of outrage at the most tyrannical administration in American history.

Meanwhile, the other side's media outlet will hail the outraged grass-roots as patriotic while the other focuses on the most extreme elements within them. The opposite-blogosphere will thus dismiss the entire movement as derived from the nutty extreme while the same-side-blogosphere will dismiss the existence of the extreme nutcases entirely.

The Daily Show (9/14) did a hilarious piece comparing side-by-side FOX's coverage of the Bush=Hitler anti-War demonstrators and the Obama=Hitler anti-Health-Care-plan demonstrators. When the next GOP admin comes in, we should go back and compare MSNBCs coverage with that of the tea parties.

[ Of course, the writers of TDS make no bones about their liberal slant, which along with being funny, is redeeming. Conservative comedy (South Park) likewise. ]

Let's see if who wants to change this one. It is nothing more than an update to existing wiretapping law to keep up with technology.

My humble proposal:

(1) If Federal Agents have a reasonable belief that the target of a wiretap has changed phones/#, they can start monitoring the new number immediately.

(2) Within 120 hours of monitoring a new number, they shall file an updated affidavit with the issuing magistrate (or FISC), detailing their grounds for adding this new number. The affidavit may include evidence gathered on the new number (e.g. we switched numbers and we heard the guys voice).

(3) The magistrate (or FISC) shall approve of deny the addition of the new number based on the totality of the original and amendment affidavit.

Aside from the general 180 degree flipping that both parties tend to do upon power shifts, the right has been particularly..let's say "sensitive"...to anything Obama has done (and yes I know this would have a strong congressional role, but that isn't exactly a mitigating factor to the folks who "worry")

If you think speaking to kids is "indoctrinating" them, even when you have the text of the speech beforehand, then what can you make out of a large bill that allows increased surveillance?

Kids example not on point enough? See the right's reaction to the mere suggestion that there was such a thing as right wing domestic terrorism that needed to be watched in any way, shape, or form.

There will only be two ways to react (sadly not even mutually exclusive): 1) Obama is after me (NRA posters apparently will be the vanguard here); 2) So I guess now that big bad Patriot Act isn't so big and bad now that the Dems are in power.

I apologize Oren as I meant to say "reasonable" rather than good faith. Certainly guidelines might help, since differing reasonable people might have radically different views (more a critique of Yoo rather than the reasonable standard in general).

Certainly where you have another number to try and it winds up being your suspect you have a pretty easy case.

Though perhaps this work has already been done and there is "reasonableness" in this context already in the case law.

I still disagree. Yes, the right (and various other non-obamatrons) are hypersensitive to Obama's actions, but those actions are in huge areas that affect everyone (enormous deficits, government corruption, health care).

While the libertarians and some on the right have always been afraid of the Patriot act, I don't expect others on the right to change their stance unless the Obama administration abuses its powers for political reasons.

I doubt he will do that, just as I (correctly) never expected Bush to do that.

The biggest problem some of us have with it is that some provisions which should be precisely targeted at terrorism have been used for other, far less important purposes, such as enforcing drug laws. The law should be better targeted.

I have no objection to proper utilization of Patriot Act. Obama will corrupt it use as a tool to advance his Orwellian agenda to convert our democratic republic into a Marxist oligarchy. He is Big Brother.

I think the right won't get unhinged about The Patriot Act is because the right was in favor of it (for the most part) and has been defending it against lefties.

The other stuff you mention has caused a big fuss because the right is very, very distrustful of Obama - which I think is reasonable given the difference between his statements and reality in area after area. The fuss about right wing terrorist groups is partly that, and partly the fear the right has that this shows a bias towards ignoring the Islamist terrorists. Obviously, under an Obama regime, the potential for a right wing terrorist of the McVeigh variety rises. The idea that there will be right wing terrorist *groups*, however, is itself not hinged on reality.

RichHSS: The text of the speech wasn't released until the sunday before he gave it. About the same time he backtracked on the "How can I help President Obama" workbooks were nixed. Most of the concern came well before that.

The indoctrination chants and keeping kids out of school came both before AND after the text of the speech was released (indeed, unless your kid is the Terminator it is hard to keep them out of school prior to the changes)

Indeed, that's the point: The "distrust" of Obama is either way off the deep end or essentially ancilliary to whatever the issue purports to be (Moore gave me several broad classifications of where the "distrust" would be and seemingly it would encompass anything...as death panels are health care...Deficits, etc.)

So it doesn't matter about the likelihood of the risk, just that you could conjure it up (For example, you suggest that the changes made in the school speech was valid...thus it is the difference between indoctrination and a talk to kids - I would suggest that the indoctrination claims were always silly)

Again, there is a logic problem as to the right wing terror report too. This is but one government report, a subsection of policy at most, so how would it be mutually exclusive that Obama (or the relevant departments) could confront the right wing terror groups (fringe elements) and thus have to stop confronting Islamic terrorists?

You can't have an FBI agent working in Arkansas at the same time you have CIA and Special Forces working in Central Asia?

I guess this is my underlying point: I can certainly see why the right shouldn't protest changes to the Patriot Act for very good reasons (prior support, need, smart changes generally)...I just don't see that track record, so far, of reasonable disagreements/agreements.

I mean aside from the very reasonable disagreements that John Moore would point out generally: Health Care, Corruption, and Deficits. You get death panels, birthers, indoctrinating kids, "out to get us" via right wing terror reports, etc.

Heck, even in this discussion (not by people I have named)...Obama was called "Big Brother" and that it would be used to eavesdrop on the NRA.

I mean aside from the very reasonable disagreements that John Moore would point out generally: Health Care, Corruption, and Deficits. You get death panels, birthers, indoctrinating kids, "out to get us" via right wing terror reports, etc.

A couple of points..

A lot of politics is about symbols and emotions- and that's what's so visible on the right today. That doesn't mean that there isn't seriousness underneath. When Palin turned loose the "death panels" meme, it was a really smart political act. It focused people on the threats to their future health care (and make no mistake, the threats are there) far better than a dispassionate argument.

Also, the current Democrat leadership and their allies in the media trigger strong reactions. I think it's a combination of arrogance, elitism, lying and outright plans (threats) to overturn everything in short order that causes such powerful reactions. The net result: not only the Medicare recipient rightly worried about loss of care, but also the loons of all varieties - including the birthers (to match the left's truthers who knew Bush did it).

Glenn Beck seems to be remarkably in tune with this - not, I think, out of calculation, but because it resonates with him. He is a bit of a conspiracy theorist (okay, maybe more than a bit), he is emotional, and he is smart enough to connect the dots (if not always in the right order :-).

I often am exposed to Beck as I sometimes use Fox News as "video wallpaper" when working on the computer. He's a fascinating guy, and definitely out towards the fringes.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.